Post-Game Talk: The Assassination of Don Henderson by the Coward Dennis Wideman

[Lunatik]

The Weber incident is nothing close. That's a hockey play as the official was in Webers skating way. Weber also has no reason to attack the official, which also indicates that it was a mistake.

Wiceman is upset and angry. He skates to the bench sees the official and attacks. He attacks the official. End of story

Wideman is going to get 20 games no matter what. The 3rd party has to look at Garys reason for upholding the suspension and decide if it is fair. He cannot look at the hit and make his own decision. The text message hammers it down.

Oh so this was a premeditated attack of an official. Why would he try to stop? Why try to shift to his right? Why is this the first time Wideman has gotten this angry from being hit? Hmmm weird eh? It doesn't all add up.

 

[Calculon]

Yeah, I'm okay with Wideman sitting out for a while longer now after that text.

I'd rather the Flames didn't set a new record for powerplay goals against.

 

[Anglesmith]

The Weber incident is nothing close. That's a hockey play as the official was in Webers skating way. Weber also has no reason to attack the official, which also indicates that it was a mistake.

Wiceman is upset and angry. He skates to the bench sees the official and attacks. He attacks the official. End of story

Ooooooh, I can make up stuff, too! Let me play!

The Wideman incident is nothing close to the Weber incident. The Wideman play is a hockey play where Wideman is getting off for a change, and the ref cuts into his lane, taking away his only legal path to the bench and taking him completely by surprise.

Weber is upset and angry. He skates down the ice, sees the official skating into his path and attacks. Video replay shows clearly him raising his arm prior to the contact and extending it, following through right around Henderson's head area. 100% intentional, end of story.

To clarify, these are not my thoughts. I'm just showing how easy it is to make things up like that. Both were accidents, and there's really no reason to assert otherwise (having an opinion based on the video is fine, but there's no grounds to treat it as a matter of fact).

Wideman is going to get 20 games no matter what. The 3rd party has to look at Garys reason for upholding the suspension and decide if it is fair. He cannot look at the hit and make his own decision. The text message hammers it down.

Given Gary's reason for upholding the suspension relies upon whether he correctly assessed the original decision, which relies upon whether the initial decision followed due process, there's pretty much full flexibility to pull the suspension down to wherever the arbitrator decides. Same case as the Bettman suspension, which also reviewed Wideman's initial case and the hit itself to assess whether the rules were fairly applied.

 

[Anglesmith]

Yeah, I'm okay with Wideman sitting out for a while longer now after that text.

Someone seriously needs to explain to me how Wideman pointing out the truth of how that first trial went in a private conversation with a teammate should be counted against him. :rolleyes

If he'd talked about "stupid Henderson" getting in his way, yes. If he'd talked about doing it again, yes. If he's mentioned doing it intentionally, yes. Hell, if he'd said "stupid refs" in public rather than in private, yes.

But pointing out that the media and refs' union's pressure on the league is responsible for the extent of the witch-hunt in this case is completely valid.

 

[Calculon]

 

[Calculon]

Someone seriously needs to explain to me how Wideman pointing out the truth of how that first trial went in a private conversation with a teammate should be counted against him. :rolleyes

In your opinion. Apparently, lots of others disagree.

If he'd talked about "stupid Henderson" getting in his way, yes. If he'd talked about doing it again, yes. If he's mentioned doing it intentionally, yes. Hell, if he'd said "stupid refs" in public rather than in private, yes.

But pointing out that the media and refs' union's pressure on the league is responsible for the extent of the witch-hunt in this case is completely valid.

Blaming the refs or the media is poor scapegoating frankly. It was an ugly incident no matter how much some want to brush it under the rug.

And the homer glasses are miles thick if you can't see the difference between the Weber and Wideman incidents.

 

[Pekkas Purse]

Lets focus on the break out being 2 seconds faster!

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

Ooooooh, I can make up stuff, too! Let me play!

The Wideman incident is nothing close to the Weber incident. The Wideman play is a hockey play where Wideman is getting off for a change, and the ref cuts into his lane, taking away his only legal path to the bench and taking him completely by surprise.

Weber is upset and angry. He skates down the ice, sees the official skating into his path and attacks. Video replay shows clearly him raising his arm prior to the contact and extending it, following through right around Henderson's head area. 100% intentional, end of story.

To clarify, these are not my thoughts. I'm just showing how easy it is to make things up like that. Both were accidents, and there's really no reason to assert otherwise (having an opinion based on the video is fine, but there's no grounds to treat it as a matter of fact).



Given Gary's reason for upholding the suspension relies upon whether he correctly assessed the original decision, which relies upon whether the initial decision followed due process, there's pretty much full flexibility to pull the suspension down to wherever the arbitrator decides. Same case as the Bettman suspension, which also reviewed Wideman's initial case and the hit itself to assess whether the rules were fairly applied.

Following the rules its Either 10, 20 or 0. Their defense is he isn't liable for his actions because he was concussed.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/pdfs/NHL-Wideman-Order.PDF

Here is Bettmans entire story on the appeal.

That line of questioning really bothers me. The way they are phrased is absolutely asked from a perspective of already guilty as opposed to the legal standard innocent until proven guilty.

I thought it was a gong show from the start and frankly I don't care if Wideman was suspended or not. I do not like however the view that we as fans are receiving of the decision making process. Lots of stuff smells here. Bettman is a lawyer by trade and it comes across far too clearly as someone cross examining a defendants witness trying to disprove them than a neutral arbitrator listening to a case.

 

[Lil]

Oh so this was a premeditated attack of an official. Why would he try to stop? Why try to shift to his right? Why is this the first time Wideman has gotten this angry from being hit? Hmmm weird eh? It doesn't all add up.

It does add up. Look at it from a non-bias POV.

 

[Calculon]

 

[Lunatik]

That line of questioning really bothers me. The way they are phrased is absolutely asked from a perspective of already guilty as opposed to the legal standard innocent until proven guilty.

I thought it was a gong show from the start and frankly I don't care if Wideman was suspended or not. I do not like however the view that we as fans are receiving of the decision making process. Lots of stuff smells here. Bettman is a lawyer by trade and it comes across far too clearly as someone cross examining a defendants witness trying to disprove them than a neutral arbitrator listening to a case.

yeah definitely guilty until proven innocent and apparently reasonable doubt doesn't matter

 

[Lil]

Ooooooh, I can make up stuff, too! Let me play!

The Wideman incident is nothing close to the Weber incident. The Wideman play is a hockey play where Wideman is getting off for a change, and the ref cuts into his lane, taking away his only legal path to the bench and taking him completely by surprise.

Weber is upset and angry. He skates down the ice, sees the official skating into his path and attacks. Video replay shows clearly him raising his arm prior to the contact and extending it, following through right around Henderson's head area. 100% intentional, end of story.

To clarify, these are not my thoughts. I'm just showing how easy it is to make things up like that. Both were accidents, and there's really no reason to assert otherwise (having an opinion based on the video is fine, but there's no grounds to treat it as a matter of fact).



Given Gary's reason for upholding the suspension relies upon whether he correctly assessed the original decision, which relies upon whether the initial decision followed due process, there's pretty much full flexibility to pull the suspension down to wherever the arbitrator decides. Same case as the Bettman suspension, which also reviewed Wideman's initial case and the hit itself to assess whether the rules were fairly applied.

I can see where you are coming from but, Weber really has no reason to purposely try to injure the ref (unless proven otherwise). Wideman was checked in a dirty matter. He has the right to be mad as a call should have been made. I don't believe Wideman wanted to hurt Don, I believe he was pissed, saw Don in his way and hit him.

Also I don't believe it works like you've stated. I think the hearer can only determine if the points presented in Gary's document and in the hearing he had were fair.

So if I'm representing Wideman, I straight attack Gary and the NHL refs. Gary is protecting the refs and that is not fair to Wideman or to the Flames. That is one way to get this over-turned.

 

[Lunatik]

It does add up. Look at it from a non-bias POV.

What was biased about what I said. I only stated facts.

 

[Rangediddy]

I
Blaming the refs or the media is poor scapegoating frankly. It was an ugly incident no matter how much some want to brush it under the rug.

It's ugly sure, but for Bettman to use that text when the context is clear as day is ridiculous. He writes a 26 page report and decides to throw in on the last page a private text. The whole document reeks of Betttman being too biased to render a fair decision.

Did you read the lines of questioning with the doctors? They're trying to discredit the doctors more than Wideman! If the doctors say that the hit was sufficient enough to cause a concussion, that should be considered. If their testimony that a concussion would cause behavior consistent with Wideman's actions, that should be considered. Instead, Bettman goes to a line of questioning that allows him to completely throw out the only testimony that would provide reasonable doubt.

If I'm Burke, I'm filing a law suit against the league for how they're handling this.

 

[Anglesmith]

Blaming the refs or the media is poor scapegoating frankly. It was an ugly incident no matter how much some want to brush it under the rug.

And the homer glasses are miles thick if you can't see the difference between the Weber and Wideman incidents

The incidents have several differences. My gripe is how differently they have been treated in light of their similarities.

 

[McDeathbyCheerios*]

yeah definitely guilty until proven innocent and apparently reasonable doubt doesn't matter

I thought because it was an appeal, in this case he was proven guilty and it was up to the defense to change that?

 

[moon*]

If I hadn't read previous comments on the matter by some I would be shocked that people think that text from Wideman is nothing.

Guys shows zero remorse after intentionally hitting a ref and tries to blame it all on the refs and media? What a d-bag. I had little to no respect for his on ice play before this but now it appears Wideman is a pretty bad dude off the ice as well.

Would have been nice to see Bettman up the suspension after that (although I doubt that is in his powers).

Hopefully the arbitrator tells Wideman and the NHLPA to f-off and stop wasting his time.

 

[knuckles1970]

Wideman's text is a completely rational and valid point. If it's in pre-season and this happens, and the media doesn't jump all over it, and the refs to don't decide to go to war, and his name is Yannick Weber, then he's not in that position at all of having to be made a fall-guy so the league's relationship with the referees isn't damaged.

Oh my god. Enough with the Yannick Weber comparisons. I don't have an issue with people unhappy at the suspension or the ruling, but please stop with that comparison! It's not in the same ballpark.

 

[knuckles1970]

If I hadn't read previous comments on the matter by some I would be shocked that people think that text from Wideman is nothing.

Guys shows zero remorse after intentionally hitting a ref and tries to blame it all on the refs and media? What a d-bag. I had little to no respect for his on ice play before this but now it appears Wideman is a pretty bad dude off the ice as well.

Would have been nice to see Bettman up the suspension after that (although I doubt that is in his powers).

Hopefully the arbitrator tells Wideman and the NHLPA to f-off and stop wasting his time.

That text means nothing in my opinion. Who hasn't sent a text to a friend that would be seen as ******* or insensitive. But it sounds clear, not just from the text, that he has shown very little remorse. That has hurt him. But Wideman is not a 'bad dude'.

 

[Rangediddy]

Oh my god. Enough with the Yannick Weber comparisons. I don't have an issue with people unhappy at the suspension or the ruling, but please stop with that comparison! It's not in the same ballpark.

It's completely within the same ballpark.

That text means nothing in my opinion. Who hasn't sent a text to a friend that would be seen as ******* or insensitive. But it sounds clear, not just from the text, that he has shown very little remorse. That has hurt him.

And how can an after the fact exchange between teammates change how remorseful he was when it happened.

If I knocked over a ref and felt bad about it, then the ref sued me for it, I'd feel less and less remorseful that it happened as time went on. Doesn't mean his initial apologies weren't sincere.

 

[Calculon]

It's ugly sure, but for Bettman to use that text when the context is clear as day is ridiculous. He writes a 26 page report and decides to throw in on the last page a private text. The whole document reeks of Betttman being too biased to render a fair decision.

Did you read the lines of questioning with the doctors? They're trying to discredit the doctors more than Wideman! If the doctors say that the hit was sufficient enough to cause a concussion, that should be considered. If their testimony that a concussion would cause behavior consistent with Wideman's actions, that should be considered. Instead, Bettman goes to a line of questioning that allows him to completely throw out the only testimony that would provide reasonable doubt.

If I'm Burke, I'm filing a law suit against the league for how they're handling this.

Bettman wasn't going to do anything but uphold this. The real interesting thing is how the independent arbitrator rules. If he should lower the suspension below 10 games, than the Flames might have some standing to take action against the league.

And yeah, there's politics at play, that's just the reality of it. The ongoing lawsuit by former NHL'ers over concussions means Bettman was going to tread lightly over that particular aspect of the appeal.

The incidents have several differences. My gripe is how differently they have been treated in light of their similarities.

The differences are what warrant the different treatment. One was 100% the refs fault while the other was at best, a grey area that results in a suspension when considering the zero tolerance of abuse towards officials policy.

 

[Mitts]

Oh so this was a premeditated attack of an official. Why would he try to stop? Why try to shift to his right? Why is this the first time Wideman has gotten this angry from being hit? Hmmm weird eh? It doesn't all add up.

Doesn't mean it was premeditated, can easily mean he skated up to the linesmen in a very sour mood after being hit in the boards, not getting the call, and then the linesmen skates unknowingly in his path and he reacts in a violent manner because he is pissed off. Shifting to the right means nothing, it doesn't imply surprise or anything, anyone can see someone and wait for the last second to move and blast them with a crosscheck, it does not imply intent. Wideman getting angry is nothing weird, people get angry at minor **** all the time, let alone in a contact game.

If you want to parade Dennis Wideman as innocent you have to ignore majority of the facts and instead try and fly his case on theory, like maybe he was concussed, he couldn't see right, tried to get out of the way, then ignore how hard he shoved, ignore that he said he wasn't woozy, ignore that he didn't show any concern for the linesman after he blasted him, you have to ignore a ton of incriminating evidence to see him as innocent.

 

[Anglesmith]

The differences are what warrant the different treatment. One was 100% the refs fault while the other was at best, a grey area that results in a suspension when considering the zero tolerance of abuse towards officials policy.

I worded it poorly; I didn't necessarily mean they should end up with an equal result in terms of discipline. I just think both incidents warrant the same due process. I don't think that happened here.

The ref's culpability really has nothing to do with supplemental discipline for this rule. Wideman was given 20 games for intentionally attacking a referee. No action by a referee (short of physical abuse, I suppose) can mitigate that if the league feels that's what happened.

Bettman's use of an out-of-context text message as support of his decision just adds another layer of eyeroll to this one for me.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Does anyone know how the text message came to light? Like, did the teammate make it public?